House of Commons - Out of the jam: reducing congestion on our roads

Out of the jam: reducing congestion on our roads - Transport Committee Contents

4 Minimising the number and impact of events on our roads

Road and street works

35. There are two types of road repair works: those carried out by the highway authorities, who have a duty to maintain their roads under Part 4 of the Highways Act 1980; and those carried out by public utilities and cable companies, which have to comply with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. When the 1991 Act was passed, only a few utilities—many of which were only recently out of the public sector—were allowed to dig up the road; when the Traffic Management Act 2004 was introduced, the number of companies had grown, especially in the telecoms sector. At the same time major programmes of mains replacement and leakage reduction were under way in the gas and water sectors. The TMA was, in part, a response to both the increasing number of companies and to the increasing frequency of their works. Parts 3 and 4 of the TMA give highway authorities greater powers to improve coordination of works and to minimise unnecessary disruption caused by poorly-planned works. Authorities have more control over where and when works can and cannot take place; they can put in place longer embargoes to protect streets that are repeatedly dug up; and they have greater enforcement powers.

36. Witnesses did not call for more road and street works legislation, but wanted scope to improve the way existing legislation is used. The TMA requires local authorities to co-ordinate various works on streets and, under Section 60 of the TMA, utilities are legally obliged to co-operate with local authorities.[61] John Pettigrew of National Grid told us there was "a spectrum of implementation across local authorities", with different authorities applying the law in different and sometimes inconsistent ways, "which makes our ability to minimise the impact on congestion more difficult".[62] Roger Culpin, of the Joint Authorities Group, said that "communication is the key" between local authorities and utilities companies, to ensure they work together to minimise congestion.[63] There are currently examples of best practice being disseminated by different groups. The Greater London Authority's evidence described TfL's development of "incentives for works promoters to apply best practice and reduce the amount of time they spend digging up roads and/or disruption traffic".[64] National Grid outlined its work in sharing best practice:

We share best practice with companies across the industry, through regional Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC) conferences and National Joint Utilities Groups (NJUGs) Street Works Forums. We are fully supportive of NJUG's submission to this inquiry.[65]

NJUG's written evidence described its Annual NJUG Awards, which "provide examples of best practice, which are converted into case studies and shared across industry"[66] and highlights its work with other groups in sharing best practice:

NJUG has driven a number of voluntary initiatives delivering real benefits through a step-change in the quality and impact of street works, including improved safety, quality, sustainability, communication and reduced disruption, as well as extensive sharing of best practice.[67]

37. Useful work is being undertaken to develop and promote good practice in minimising the number and impact of road and street works. We recommend that the DfT, working with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC), should ensure that examples of best practice are disseminated to highway authorities and utility companies.

38. The Traffic Management Act, and the Permit Scheme Regulations made under it, provided for a new system for highway authorities to manage street works from April 2008, to enable authorities to be more proactive in the management and control of activities taking place on their roads. Permit schemes provide for utilities to book occupation of the street for an allocated period of time, for a specific purpose. Conditions can be attached to permits that impose constraints on the how the work is carried out and they can allow the local authority to direct the timing of the work. To date, permit schemes have been introduced only in London, Kent and Northamptonshire. In London the scheme applies to all roads; in the other two areas permits relate only to certain roads (Northampton's permit scheme went live in January 2011 and focuses on strategic roads, amounting to around 19% of their road network).[68]

39. The limited number of schemes and the short time in which they have been in existence means that there is not yet a consensus on what constitute the essential elements of a good permit scheme. The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation(CIHT) supports the permit scheme:

[B]y applying the Permit Schemes a greater degree of congestion reduction has been achieved (Kent County Council verbal statement) and despite an increase in costs to the community, all the Permit Fees costs may be 'passed on', there should be a corresponding reduction in congestion costs.[69]

Norman Baker MP was also enthusiastic about the permit scheme:

I am very keen to push the permit scheme arrangement, which has been successful. The initial findings in Kent, which has adopted it, are that roadworks have decreased 26%. That was the initial finding; 1,389 days in the last year have been saved on roadworks. The London figure is a 32% reduction as a consequence of the permit schemes there. You may know that, recently, seven further London boroughs have signed up to permit schemes in the last few weeks. That is a way of driving performance, co-ordinating roadworks better and making sure that there is ownership at local authority level for those particular works.[70]

40. The National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) had concerns about some local authorities' operation of permit schemes, citing the London example, which "is not targeted to prioritise works on the most traffic-sensitive parts of the network," but requires permits for all works in all streets of those local authorities that have introduced it, regardless of whether the street is busy, so is "unlikely to reduce congestion, as intended whilst imposing significant additional costs on utilities and customers".[71] In contrast, it described the Kent scheme that concentrates on the most congested roads, thereby prioritising those works, and resulting in "a 50% reduction in complaints about street and road works".[72]

41. The Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) commented that permit schemes do not remove all the operational problems connected with certain types of works:

[I]f a Distribution Network Operator (DNO, or Electricity Company) makes a supply to a property, then the DNO are responsible for obtaining the permit to open the road and lay the cables. If the supply is to a lighting or traffic sign then the permit would relate to 'Works for Road Purposes' and the highway authority becomes responsible for seeking the permit, but without any ability to control or influence the work programme of the DNO.[73]

National Grid's evidence highlighted the inconsistency in the way in which key performance measures are available for highway works covered by permits schemes to demonstrate that highway authorities are being even-handed in the treatment of works promoters: "In order to ensure effectiveness Key Performance Measures (KPMs) need to be developed and applied equally to all works promoters including Street Authorities".[74] NJUG stated that differing schemes add additional costs to utilities, customers and local authorities, and result in inadvertent non-compliance because of variations between schemes. John Pettigrew, of National Grid, also highlighted inconsistencies in their application and the impact they are having on congestion.[75] He argued that an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the London and Kent schemes should be carried out, as was agreed by the previous Government.[76]

42. It is clear from our evidence that while there is a good deal of support for permit schemes and some promising early results, questions about their impact remain. It is therefore important that permit schemes are monitored and reviewed, to give local authorities relevant data and examples of best practice. NJUG recommended that "mechanisms are in place to share best practice so that individual local authorities do not all 'reinvent the wheel'" when devising permit schemes.[77] The DfT's stated that "local authorities will be responsible for evaluating their performance"[78] and the Government is bringing forward proposals by April 2012 to allow schemes in England to go ahead without the Secretary of State's approval.[79] Norman Baker MP told us that "[l]ocal knowledge certainly is best in terms of the specific solution for each individual congestion point or each individual high street. Obviously a local council know its high street better than the DfT, which has probably never even seen the high street".[80]

43. The wider adoption of permit schemes by local authorities could result in the emergence of a single 'best-practice' approach, or a limited number of approaches—say for predominantly urban and rural areas—to managing street works. However, devolving permit schemes to local authorities could lead to significant variations between the schemes, resulting in a patchwork of different local authority approaches to street works, which could prove particularly burdensome to the utility companies. It is the role of Government to ensure that where there is variation between local authorities' approaches to permit schemes, that variation is warranted given the potential cost implications. The Government should commission an independent assessment of the London and Kent permit schemes, as was agreed by the previous Government. This assessment should assess whether the initial permit schemes are following the right approach and make recommendations about improvements, in order to inform other local authorities considering implementing their own permit schemes. The Government should also put in place arrangements to monitor the uptake of permit schemes and the variations between local authorities' approaches.

44. Another option for managing street works is lane rental, which was provided for in the Transport Act 2000 and which involves utilities "renting" lanes when they carry out works in the street. DfT's written evidence describes its proposals "to pilot a 'lane rental' approach for the most traffic sensitive roads (legislation brought forward by December 2011)"[81] and Norman Baker MP told us that lane rental would "give an incentive directly for utilities to co-ordinate their works because they would have to share the cost of the lane rental rather than having to have the scarce bit of road dug up again and then bearing the whole cost of that particular operation".[82] On 22 August 2011, the DfT published a consultation and draft guidance document for local authorities, outlining how lane rentals can be implemented.

45. The Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Councils support the lane rental scheme,[83] with the GLA arguing that:

lane rental would incentivise the streetworks industry to deliver real behavioural change and encourage it to change working practices, develop innovative working methods (eg more joint working and shared contractors) and new technology (eg 'no dig' technologies; more sophisticated bridging and plating systems; application of new materials for trench reinstatement that do not need 24 hours to 'cure') to reduce the footprint and duration of works.[84]

Halcrow also argued in favour of lane rental:

By developing the lane rental scheme in such a way that drives a better consideration of the planning of works it will place the ownership for minimising unnecessary delay and obstruction back with the undertaker. [...] By focussing on works and/or reinstatement category and an estimate of traffic volume, it will drive the correct behaviour from the undertaker to reduce the duration of works. Additionally, including punitive lane rental charges that tackle unnecessary occupation relating to defective workmanship and/or multiple phase works will reinforce that correct behaviour.[85]

46. In their 2003 Report into local roads, our predecessors were not enthusiastic about lane rental schemes:

We do not believe that lane rental offers a sensible way to reduce disruption caused by street works. The works undertaken by utilities are necessary. The objective of any charging scheme should be to charge for inefficiency in carrying out the work, not for carrying out the work in the first place. The overrun charging system already provides a mechanism to achieve these objectives and should be made to work properly.[86]

A number of witnesses in this inquiry also had reservations about the widespread use of lane rental. NJUG wrote that lane rentals would be an additional charge imposed on utilities for every day they occupy the highway, regardless of how efficiently the work is undertaken, and that

given the myriad of regulation already available and the numerous voluntary measures introduced by NJUG, we do not believe that lane rental will necessarily deliver significant additional benefits over and above the existing legislation, whilst increasing utility costs considerably.[87]

John Pettigrew summarised the inherent problem of the lane rental scheme:

If there is a gas leak, we have to go and respond to it and we have to dig up the road to repair the pipe. Quite often that job will be a two-day job. However efficiently you do it, it is a two-day job. Therefore, to have to pay for those two days in addition to fixed penalty notices and overrun charges provide no incentive on us to look at the ways we are working. It just seems to penalise us for having to do what we have a statutory duty to do.[88]

47. Our predecessors were not convinced about the merits of lane rentals, and we are yet to be convinced that the scheme is the best way of tackling congestion from street works. We recognise the potential of lane rental to target more directly changes in the behaviour of utility companies, which will potentially reduce disruption. However, we also recognise the fact that there will be costs attached, which will be passed on to customers. We want reassurance that the scheme achieves the right balance. The Government should monitor the London lane rental scheme, in order to assess its wider application.

48. Utility companies emphasised the discrepancy between the treatment of work carried out by utilities, and work carried out by local authorities themselves, notably in relation to performance and sanctions. NJUG supported the adoption of an independent road works commissioner, as in Scotland, who is able to penalise both utilities and local authorities for failure to coordinate and cooperate, writing that the commissioner role "has proved to be effective at encouraging a more collaborative approach to reducing disruption".[89] The Government should study ways of ensuring that local authorities' own works on roads are subject to the same rules and penalties as the utility companies' works, so as to produce the same improvements in reducing disruption. In such circumstances, the Government should explore the possibility of ways of ensuring that resulting fines are not simply a transfer of resources from local authority department to another, rather than being a real incentive to change.

Incidents

49. Incidents, in the form of crashes, broken-down vehicles and shed loads, are seen as one of the key sources of unreliability on strategic and local networks. Jack Semple, of the Road Haulage Association (RHA) spoke about the time the police take to investigate road accidents:

We understand that there needs to be a proper investigation when there is an accident, but there needs to be a much clearer idea about the impact that an extended closure has. We would be interested to see what the benefit is that the judicial system and society gets from a major closure against doing the job more quickly, which appears to happen elsewhere in Europe.[90]

A review into the investigation and closure procedures for motorway incidents was carried out by the DfT, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Highways Agency and the Home Office, to investigate how the duration of motorway closures due to incidents could be reduced, in order to keep motorways moving.[91] The review has ten recommendations, including exploring the role of emergency responders and other parties in motorway incidents (other than the police and the Highways Agency), analysing the causes of regional variations, producing more accurate and useful information on delays, producing a collection of case studies and good practice models, exploring the use of technologies in incident management, and providing more police training for on-road and collision investigation. Of particular concern is the significant regional variation of motorway closure, despite the similarity of accident types, dues to the regional and national autonomy that police forces have, which results in individuals applying and interpreting procedures differently, and due to a lack of the dissemination and sharing of good practices.[92] The DfT plan to carry out further analysis to help to understand the causes of regional variations by December 2011.[93] The DfT's written evidence stated that "we are committed to ensuring that any improvements identified from the review are taken forward by December 2012.[94] Supplementary evidence submitted by the DfT revised that date and stated that:

The majority of the reviews recommendations are expected to be completed by the end of the year, and we remain on track to deliver on a further business plan commitment to set up and implement measure[s] to reduce congestion by incidents by December 2012.[95]

50. We support the Highways Agency in its joint initiative with the police and the Home Office, to speed up the time taken to clear major roads, following an incident. We particularly support the Highways Agency's work in analysing the regional variations of motorway closures. The review was published in May 2011, but some of the recommendations will not be taken forward until December 2012. There needs to be continued commitment from all parties, with maintained urgency in addressing all of the outcomes of the review.

61 Ev 38 Back

62 Ev 23. We did not receive many submissions from local authorities on this issue and so do not have specific examples of variations between local authorities. Back

63 Dave Turnbull, of the National Joint Utilities Group, described TfL's "workathons", where streets are closed and different utility companies are invited in to carry out routine work at the same time, rather than sequentially (Ev139). Back

64 Ev 188 Back

65 Ev 129 Back

66 Ev 137 Back

67 Ev 137 Back

68 Ev 139 Back

69 Ev 118 Back

70 Ev 65 Back

71 Ev 139 Back

72 Ev 139 Back